World Cup 2006 in review: Part 1 (On the Field)

The World Cup is over, and like any correspondent to the greatest sporting event in the world, I really should write a summary. I spent a lot of time, money, and emotional energy there: I deserve some catharis!

There’s simply too much to put into a bite-sized morsel for easy digestion, so I’ll break this into three parts: Part 1 will be on the play in the tournament itself. Part 2 will be on the travel and experience in Germany, and in Part 3 I’ll look at the future of the tournament, the United States team, and final thoughts to this World Cup Fan Blog.

The people who write about these things already say the play in the 2006 World Cup ranks among the poorest in recent memory, perhaps only a little less dreary than the 1990 Cup in Italy. To be sure, goalscoring was abysmal: this year yielded the fewest goals per game of any of the 18 World Cups other than in 1990. And everyone has been reminded often that by far more yellow and red cards were issued in this tournament than in any other.

The lack of goalscoring is easy to identify in the statistics, but its cause is harder to define. Are the coaches getting so defensive in their tactics that the players simply don’t have the freedom to attack and display creativity? Is the gap between soccer powers and soccer minnows so narrow that easy, big wins are much more difficult to achieve now? Is there simply a scarcity of men who know how to score? Did the goalies just have an insanely good summer? Is the jacked-up ball Adidas rolled out just too hot for even the world’s best strikers to control? Are the players too tired from yet another long year of club ball rolling directly into national team duty? Are the referees responsible, stopping the flow of the game too many times for dubious ticky-tack fouls and phantom injuries? Or are they responsible because they allowed too much clutching, grabbing, and shirt-pulling? Are the defenses just that good?

Who knows. Tactical formations don’t tell the whole story, but it seemed the 4-5-1 formation, with a lone forward, was all the rage. Players in this tournament, with only a few outstanding exceptions, seemed much less capable than ever of hitting medium to long-range shots anywhere close to the goal. The referees were absolutely culpable in allowing some teams to destroy the flow of the game, waste time, and in a few games their gullibility altered the final result; but I don’t think they were largely responsible for the lack of goals or scoring opportunities.

Indeed, a few notable teams, our new trophy holders included, relied more on fakery and timewasting than I’ve seen before in any World Cup. But most didn’t, I don’t think. A few genuinely bad apples makes the whole barrel seem rotten.

England played an awful, embarrassingly boring style of football this year. Brazil, the sexy sports car of the soccer teams, were stuck in second gear throughout June; they always hinted of a powerful talent, but never really used it, even in the end when they needed it most against France. The United States were simply dismal, despite the stunning and proud draw against Italy; no team took fewer shots than the US, and the Americans were playing catch-up starting from the Czechs’ goal from Jan Koller in the 5th minute of the tournament all the way through to the bitter end against Ghana. Then again, the Czechs themselves proved a disappointment. Spain, soccer’s world champion of perennial underachievers, once again fell short of expectations. CONCACAF, the qualifying region that includes the US, Mexico, Costa Rica, and Trinidad, went 1-9-3.

On the positive side, France grew through the tournament into a fearsome power, with a memorable performance against Brazil. Italy showed an ironclad, talented defense that was largely responsible for their capture of the title. On the heels of their shameful timewasting and injury faking against the USA in the previous game, Ghana proudly played toe-to-toe with enthusiasm against Brazil in the second round. Jurgen Klinsmann helped redefine German soccer, showing the world a style aiming to please, and intending to win, every time out. Ecuador proved the doubters wrong by advancing despite playing in Germany at altitudes where oxygen is present. Argentina dazzled us through much of the tournament, in particular with a single performance for the ages against Serbia and Montenegro, in which the Argentines’ second goal touched players in baby-blue 24 consecutive times before hitting the back of the Serbian net. Then the Argentines broke the hearts of Mexico’s fans with a brilliant extra time goal to win one of the best games of the tournament.

The naysayers have some valid points about the play in the 2006 version of this tournament, but it’s not as bad as they make it out to be. People will start proposing radical changes to fix the problems, and that’s a good thing, to brainstorm ideas to ensure the sport’s biggest event is also its best. But despite the sky-is-falling wailing after 1990, things bounced back nicely in 1994. I think these things tend to have a bit of randomness to them–a 2006 tournament termed a disappointment on the field for many observers doesn’t predict a disappointing 2010 in South Africa.

I’ve only been able to spout a few of the great things about 2006 on the pitch–and a few of the letdowns. What comes to your mind?

Next: Part 2 will deal with the World Cup as a party and a vacation: My personal experience in Germany.